Next week, the council takes up as critical and empowering a task as it has: authorizing the city budget. If the first nine months of this year are any indication, don't expect the council to flex its muscle much in unexpected or revolutionary ways.

With few exceptions, so far this year, the nine-member council has endeavored little beyond what Mayor Greg Nickels has asked of it.

Some council members say their primary job is to consider and revise the mayor's agenda. Others say they wish they could do more but complain the mayor hogs the limelight and the resources.

Yet, many outsiders counter it's the council's responsibility to set its own vision for Seattle's future -- not to tinker on the margins of governmental operations.

So far this year, the council has come up with a handful of its own noteworthy policy initiatives, including changes to bed-and-breakfast rules and a ballot proposal to make personnel amendments to the city charter.

With Nickels' buy-in, council members also drew a bright line on what they were -- and weren't -- willing to concede the owners of the NBA Sonics when they demanded an arena overhaul and a more lucrative lease.

Mostly, it's been a season of calling for studies, seeing through previous decisions and shepherding the mayor's ideas.

Occasionally, council members have imposed significant revisions to such proposals. For example, they dramatically altered Nickels' proposals to raise taxes for roads, overhaul downtown zoning rules and impose new protections to environmentally sensitive areas.

"Every time we pass a piece of legislation, we're adding to that vision," Councilwoman Jean Godden said. "Part of our role is to pass legislation, and we refine it if the mayor suggests it. On the other hand, we don't always act on it, nor do we always act on it the way he wants.

"The council's role is always a sort of secondary one because there are nine of us and we serve at large," Godden said.

Gail Chiarello, a neighborhood activist, said the council has been especially responsive to community groups.

"I am sure from the point of view of the downtown let's-get-it-done crowd, this council may deliberate too long. But the much-maligned 'Seattle process' may be a good thing," she said.

Others disagree.

In interviews with the Seattle P-I, about a dozen former council members, lobbyists and other insiders shared this nearly uniform reaction when broached with the topic of the council's 2006 accomplishments: laughter.

One well-connected Democratic consultant put it this way: It's like nine people in the same batting cage, all swinging wildly but none connecting.

Some say council members should be more aggressive when it comes to setting policy, more like their peers in the legislative branches of state and federal government.

"Over the last decade or so, the City Council has become more and more reviewers, and less and less policy (deciders). I think we need more policy discussion," said Anne Fennessy, a political affairs consultant who previously worked for former Gov. Mike Lowry and former Seattle Mayor Charles Royer.

The council should delve more deeply into transportation, land use, criminal justice, housing and other issues, she said, to get at: "Where do we really want to go as a community, and what are the long-term policy choices that we should be making?"

While it's fine that the mayor proposes legislation, his job is primarily to operate City Hall -- hire and fire people, administer the budget, Fennessy said. "The legislative branch should be doing policy. They should be directing and raising policy questions," she said.

Recent councils have overly focused on smaller initiatives and "running the government rather than directing it -- which is what their job is."

Fennessy and others suggested council members should set out visions as a whole as well as individually.

"I would like, personally, to see us do more of that," said Councilman Richard Conlin, who also said it had been a "really hard working year" for the council. "But it is really tough to bring nine council members together and come up with a common vision."

Council President Nick Licata said he thinks the council sometimes is "too nice."

"We want to get along, and you want to pick your battles" with the Mayor's Office, he said. Still, Licata argued, the council is building policy visions incrementally.

"Those broad statements get translated into budget (decisions)," Licata said. "You have to roll up your sleeves and get into the nitty-gritty."

Some critics say today's council lacks productivity because it lacks diversity -- politically and professionally. In the past, Republicans, lawyers, political activists, businesspeople and even a former state lawmaker held seats on the council.

Council observers often point to the rosters from the 1970s and 1980s as eras of great action.

Randy Revelle, who sat on the council from 1974 to 1981, said the council was more diverse those days, a trait that brought energy and a healthy competitiveness. Some were involved in an activists group formed because of previous councils' reputations as do-nothing panels, he said.

"We were very much in the activist role, and we did quite a bit of initiating of our own legislation and policies," Revelle said.

Revelle noted the council shocked many in 1976 when it rejected the mayor's broadly supported proposal to subsidize nuclear power plants. "We said 'No' and that was pretty remarkable," he said.

Today's council consists mostly of liberal community activists with limited political experience. By contrast, Nickels and Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis are steeped in politics.

In fact, Councilman Peter Steinbrueck said the council's inability to strike out on its own is partly because of Nickels' deliberate attempts to bog it down with his agenda.

"We get so much legislation dumped on us -- and (Nickels' office) knows this -- that it becomes difficult to get time on the calendar for council initiatives," Steinbrueck said. "They have the staff, the resources, the analysts, the data and the time to devote to these things."

Still, Licata disagrees that the council has lost the diversity or aggressiveness of previous decades.

"There's always a golden era. And the further away, the greater it shines," Licata said. He said he considered today's council "probably as diverse as Seattle is."

Unlike state and federal legislatures, there are few deadlines constraining the council and little self-imposed discipline. Sometimes, members don't decide where they stand on policy matters until it's time to vote, and occasionally they surprise one another with last-minute attempts to amend or delay legislation.

In Olympia and Washington, D.C., lawmakers are governed by party leaders and hometown constituents. By contrast, the City Council is non-partisan, and members serve the city at large, rather than answering to a specific district.

Still, it's not unusual for City Councils to take back seats to their mayors in initiating policy, said David Olson, a political science professor at the University of Washington.

"The mayor has staff with expertise and a greater overview of bureaucratic (matters). That allows the mayor to propose more legislation," Olson said. Referencing a well-known saying around City Hall, "It's not unusual that the mayor proposes, and the council disposes."